- This topic is empty.
- Posts
hi all here
Geert Wilders:
I first visited an Islamic country in 1982. I was 18 years old and had traveled with a Dutch friend from Eilat in Israel to the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh.
We were two almost penniless backpacking students. We slept on the beaches and found hospitality with Egyptians, who spontaneously invited us to tea. I clearly recall my very first impression of Egypt: I was overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of its people.
I also remember my second strong impression of Egypt: It struck me how frightened these friendly and kind people were.While we were in Sharm el-Sheikh, President Mubarak happened to visit the place.
I remember the fear which suddenly engulfed the town when it was announced that Mubarak was coming on an unexpected visit; I can still see the cavalcade of black cars on the day of his visit and feel the almost physical awareness of fear, like a cold chill on that very hot day in Summer.
It was a weird experience; Mubarak is not considered the worst of the Islamic tyrants and yet, the fear of the ordinary Egyptians for their leader could be felt even by me. I wonder how Saudis feel when their King is in town, how Libyans feel when Gaddafi announces his coming, how Iraqis must have felt when Saddam Hussein was near. A few years later, I read in the Koran how the 7th century Arabs felt in the presence of Muhammad, who, as several verses describe, “cast terror into their hearts” (suras 8:12, 8:60, 33:26, 59:12).
From Sharm el-Sheikh, my friend and I went to Cairo. It was poor and incredibly dirty. My friend and I were amazed that such a poor and filthy place could be a neighbor of Israel, which was so clean. The explanation of the Arabs, with whom we discussed their poverty, was that they were not in any way to blame for this affliction: They said they were the victims of a global conspiracy of “imperialists” and “Zionists”, aimed at keeping Muslims poor and subservient. I found that explanation unconvincing. My instinct told me it had something to do with the different cultures of Israel and Egypt.
I made a mistake in Cairo. We had almost no money and I was thirsty. One could buy a glass of water at public water collectors. It did not look clean, but I drank it. I got a terrible diarrhea. I went to a hostel where one could rent a spot on the floor for two dollars a day. There I lay for several days, a heap of misery in a crowded, stinking room, with ten other guys. Once Egypt had been the most advanced civilization on earth. Why had it not progressed along with the rest of the world?
In the late 1890s, Winston Churchill was a soldier and a war correspondent in British India (contemporary Pakistan) and the Sudan. Churchill was a perceptive young man, whose months in Pakistan and the Sudan allowed him to grasp with amazing clarity what the problem is with Islam and “the curses it lays on its votaries.
“Besides the fanatical frenzy, …, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy,” he wrote. “The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist where the followers of the Prophet rule or live. … The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to a sole man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. … Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.” And Churchill concluded: “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”
There are people who say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate Muslims. It saddens me how Islam has robbed them of their dignity.What Islam does to Muslims is visible in the way they treat their daughters. On March 11, 2002, fifteen Saudi schoolgirls died as they attempted to flee from their school in the holy city of Mecca. A fire had set the building ablaze. The girls ran to the school gates but these were locked. The keys were in the possession of a male guard, who refused to open the gates because the girls were not wearing the correct Islamic dress imposed on women by Saudi law: face veils and overgarments.
The “indecently” dressed girls frantically tried to save their young lives. The Saudi police beat them back into the burning building. Officers of the Mutaween, the “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice,” as the Police are known in Saudi Arabia, also beat passers-by and firemen who tried to help the girls. “It is sinful to approach them,” the policemen warned bystanders. It is not only sinful, it is also a criminal offence.
Girls are not valued highly in Islam; the Koran says that the birth of a daughter makes a father’s “face darken and he is filled with gloom” (sura 43:17). Nevertheless, the incident at the Mecca school drew angry reactions. Islam is inhumane; but Muslims are humans, hence capable of Love – that powerful force which Muhammad despised. Humanity prevailed in the Meccan fathers who were incensed over the deaths of their daughters; it also prevailed in the firemen who confronted the Mutaween when the latter were beating the girls back inside, and in the journalists of the Saudi paper which, for the first time in Saudi history, criticized the much feared and powerful “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.”
However, Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims, even in Western countries, visit mosques and listen to shocking Koranic verses and to repulsive sermons without revolting against them.
I am an agnosticus myself. But Christians and Jews hold that God created man in His image. They believe that by observing themselves, as free and rational beings capable of love, they can come to know Him. They can even reason with Him, as the Jews have done throughout their history. The Koran, on the contrary, states that “Nothing can be compared with Allah” (sura 16:74, 42:11). He has absolutely nothing in common with us. It is preposterous to suppose that Allah created man in his image. The biblical concept that God is our father is not found in Islam. There is no personal relationship between man and Allah, either. The purpose of Islam is the total submission of oneself and others to the unknowable Allah, whom we must serve through total obedience to Muhammad as leader of the Islamic state (suras 3:31, 4:80, 24:62, 48:10, 57:28). And history has taught us that Muhammad was not at all a prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile. Muslims could not have a more deplorable role model.
Without individual freedom, it is not surprising that the notion of man as a responsible agent is not much developed in Islam. Muslims tend to be very fatalistic. Perhaps – let us certainly hope so – only a few radicals take the Koranic admonition to wage jihad on the unbelievers seriously. Nevertheless, most Muslims never raise their voice against the radicals. This is the “fearful fatalistic apathy” Churchill referred to.
The author Aldous Huxley, who lived in North Africa in the 1920s, made the following observation: “About the immediate causes of things – precisely how they happen – they seem to feel not the slightest interest. Indeed, it is not even admitted that there are such things as immediate causes: God is directly responsible for everything. ‘Do you think it will rain?’ you ask pointing to menacing clouds overhead. ‘If God wills,’ is the answer. You pass the native hospital. ‘Are the doctors good?’ ‘In our country,’ the Arab gravely replies, in the tone of Solomon, ‘we say that doctors are of no avail. If Allah wills that a man die, he will die. If not, he will recover.’ All of which is profoundly true, so true, indeed, that is not worth sa
ying. To the Arab, however, it seems the last word in human wisdom. … They have relapsed – all except those who are educated according to Western methods – into pre-scientific fatalism, with its attendant incuriosity and apathy.”Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is a shame, because free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world.
As a Dutch, a European and a Western politician, my responsibility is primarily to the Dutch people, to the Europeans and the West. However, since the liberation of the Muslims from Islam, will benefit all of us, I wholeheartedly support Muslims who love freedom. My message to them is clear: “Fatalism is no option; ‘Inch’ Allah’ is a curse; Submission is a disgrace.
Free yourselves. It is up to you.
Geert Wilders
Source:
Muslimsdebate.com
You already admitted you are an Agnostic and therefor you have NO KNOWLEDGE of an UNDERSTANDING of GOD.
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Numbers 23:18-20To say that Man was made in the image of God does not mean that Man is comparable to God in any way just like a DOLL is not comparable to a HUMAN except in the most minute way.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 06 2010,06:11) You already admitted you are an Agnostic and therefor you have NO KNOWLEDGE of an UNDERSTANDING of GOD.
It is not true that agnostics have no understanding of gods. From my point of view the agnostic appreciates the nature of gods better than any believer.Stuart
Re: Geert Wilders
Secularists sometimes have ill-matched bedfellows. I don’t agree with Geert Wilders’s policies on what the Netherlands should do about immigration and religious practices of muslims (although a burka ban I think would be appropriate as is being enacted in France), and his other far-right policies are the usual laughable and ineffectual nonsense.
There are people who say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate Muslims. It saddens me how Islam has robbed them of their dignity.What Islam does to Muslims is visible in the way they treat their daughters.
This is absolutely right, although it is wasted on many muslims who cannot distinguish between their own persona and their religion. The “submission” is literal and identity-sapping. In many variations of the religion it is corrosive to characteristics that make us the species we are.
Wilders’s speech to parliament:
Very many Dutch citizens, Madam Speaker, experience the presence of Islam around them. And I can report that they have had enough of burkas, headscarves, the ritual slaughter of animals, so called honour revenge, blaring minarets, female circumcision, hymen restoration operations, abuse of homosexuals, Turkish and Arabic on the buses and trains as well as on town hall leaflets, halal meat at grocery shops and department stores, Sharia exams, the Finance Minister's Sharia mortgages, and the enormous overrepresentation of Muslims in the area of crime, including Moroccan street terrorists.
The bits about Arabic and Turkish language on public transport and Moroccan “street terrorists” I think weaken his case, but I agree, these practices are something that I would stand up against if they were widespread in New Zealand, and in fact perhaps I should since a lot of our meat production is halal for muslim markets.
The islamic world appears to confirm even his wildest claims by making continual death threats. Islam demonstrably is a mindless medieval way of thinking if it has to replace reasoned debate with violence, which it did when islamic extremists stabbed to death another anti-islamic Dutch filmaker, Theo van Gogh.
The right to take up arms against oppression is what BD and others would call it. It seems to be that just making observations is oppressive enough to justify violent responses.
Has islam or Roman Catholicism been more demeaning to human dignity? It is difficult to decide. At least the RCC has had its wings clipped down to the sad, immoral, moribund flightless being it is today. Islam is still in its new adolescence, asserting itself on the world but unable to take responsibility for its actions, which are often mindless.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 06 2010,08:41) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 06 2010,06:11) You already admitted you are an Agnostic and therefor you have NO KNOWLEDGE of an UNDERSTANDING of GOD.
It is not true that agnostics have no understanding of gods. From my point of view the agnostic appreciates the nature of gods better than any believer.Stuart
Stu,What does the word A-gnostic mean?
Answer: Without knowledge
So what I said was a literal statement, if someone says I have no knowledge about something shouldn't I also be convinced that that same person doesn't have an understanding of what they have no knowledge of?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 07 2010,05:31) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 06 2010,08:41) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 06 2010,06:11) You already admitted you are an Agnostic and therefor you have NO KNOWLEDGE of an UNDERSTANDING of GOD.
It is not true that agnostics have no understanding of gods. From my point of view the agnostic appreciates the nature of gods better than any believer.Stuart
Stu,What does the word A-gnostic mean?
Answer: Without knowledge
So what I said was a literal statement, if someone says I have no knowledge about something shouldn't I also be convinced that that same person doesn't have an understanding of what they have no knowledge of?
No, an agnostic is without knowledge about the existence of gods, realising as he does that it is not possible to prove or disprove their existence.Agnosticism does not mean without knowledge of what people think gods are.
You are just as agnostic as everyone is. Unless you can prove there is a god, or give unambigious evidence for one.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 07 2010,16:06) Quote No, an agnostic is without knowledge about the existence of gods, realising as he does that it is not possible to prove or disprove their existence. If you have no knowledge about the existence of “gods” then he can not have an understanding of God, how can you have an understanding of something you have no knowledge of existing?
Quote Agnosticism does not mean without knowledge of what people think gods are. An Agnostic can have no personal understanding of God
and neither can an Atheist.Quote You are just as agnostic as everyone is. Actually I do know that God exists,Regardless of whether my comprehension allows me complete knowledge of God is not to say I question the existence of God according to the understanding of others views of how they understand God
Quote Unless you can prove there is a god, or give unambigious evidence for one. If I said I understand God as conscious existence could you deny that this is unambiguous evidence? It is not ambiguous that Consciousness is inherent throughout existence and that logical conscious actions pervade the universe in logical order. The Axiomatic reality is that Existence Exist is there any other option? All that exists had to come from Orgination meaning that God is the Prime Originator the source which all LAW and Life flows from.
BD
Quote If you have no knowledge about the existence of “gods” then he can not have an understanding of God, how can you have an understanding of something you have no knowledge of existing?
In the way I have already explained to you: you can understand what motivates and otherwise causes people to believe in Imaginary Friends, and you can know what they believe about their gods. Are you saying that because you do not believe that the Roman god Diana exists, you cannot know anything about what believers in Diana thought about her? How could you “know” there was only one god if you did not have this knowledge to allow you to make the distinction? Perhaps you can’t!Quote An Agnostic can have no personal understanding of God
and neither can an Atheist.
I, personally, know quite a lot about what others think they know about their Imaginary Friend. If you are talking about some personal experience that has convinced you the Friend is not just imaginary, then I’m afraid I will only be convinced of your argument if you can provide some unambiguous evidence that it is a deity causing such an experience. How do you know what causes such experiences? You have not been able to show me there is any such thing as your god, let alone what it does or does not cause.Quote Actually I do know that God exists,Regardless of whether my comprehension allows me complete knowledge of God is not to say I question the existence of God according to the understanding of others views of how they understand God
You are an expert at mangling the English language. What did you say? The bottom line is, that I can claim that the whole pantheon of Roman gods exists, and I have personal experience of all of them, and you are wrong because you have neglected to make a personal relationship with each of them in the way I have. Would you have respect for such a statement, and if not, why should anyone respect yours? After all, you are “atheist” towards all gods apart from the one you worship. Why should others not be “atheist” in regards to your god? There is no unambiguous evidence to distinguish between god claims.Quote If I said I understand God as conscious existence could you deny that this is unambiguous evidence? It is not ambiguous that Consciousness is inherent throughout existence and that logical conscious actions pervade the universe in logical order.
Why should a god be needed to cause consciousness? It is not a fact that consciousness in inherent throughout existence, so how could it be any kind of evidence anyway? Even if it was true, it is still ambiguous because it could be evidence for the work of the quick and clever Mercury, the hard-working if occasionally dangerous Vulcan and the seductive Venus. If the universe is the work of gods (or just one), where is your evidence that your god has played any part in it? I really think that if believers could see that the arguments they make for the existence of their own god are arguments for any god then the rate of belief would halve. I don’t think you can see the absurdity of it either.Quote The Axiomatic reality is that Existence Exist is there any other option? All that exists had to come from Orgination meaning that God is the Prime Originator the source which all LAW and Life flows from.
Non-sequitur and religious platitude. It is much more valid to say that existence arises from events that lead to existence, and it is not necessarily true that all events have causes. If believers could grasp that idea then I think the rate of belief would halve again, at least amongst those intelligent enough to think it.Stuart
Stu and Bod but more Stu than Bod,
EVERYONE believes in God whether they believe they do or not.
Atheists simply DENY that they believe in God – That does not mean that they DON'T BELIEVE, see.
You believe in God – else what are you doing here DENYING IT?
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 08 2010,09:52) Stu and Bod but more Stu than Bod, EVERYONE believes in God whether they believe they do or not.
Atheists simply DENY that they believe in God – That does not mean that they DON'T BELIEVE, see.
You believe in God – else what are you doing here DENYING IT?
I believe that others believe in gods. It is also clear that there are gods that you do not believe in. I am 100% atheist and you are 99.999% atheist: we differ by only one of the 10,000 gods that humans have believed in.I realise that differentiating between what you believe and what others believe could be challenging for you JustAskin.
The fact that you can't allow yourself see what an atheist believes is probably best explained by the fragility of the faith that you refuse to put at risk.
The down side of keeping your delusions protected regardless of their absurdity or otherwise is that it makes you appear to lack empathy.
Stuart
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 08 2010,09:52) Stu and Bod but more Stu than Bod, EVERYONE believes in God whether they believe they do or not.
Atheists simply DENY that they believe in God – That does not mean that they DON'T BELIEVE, see.
You believe in God – else what are you doing here DENYING IT?
That was an inane statement just askin.That is like saying that everyody believes in the easter bunny
whether they believe they do or not.Sane adults simply deny that they believe in the easter bunny – that does not mean that they don't believe, see.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 08 2010,08:50) Quote In the way I have already explained to you: you can understand what motivates and otherwise causes people to believe in Imaginary Friends, and you can know what they believe about their gods. Are you saying that because you do not believe that the Roman god Diana exists, you cannot know anything about what believers in Diana thought about her? How could you “know” there was only one god if you did not have this knowledge to allow you to make the distinction? Perhaps you can’t! Knowing what others believe is not the same thing as having an understanding of what they believe. If you know that I believe that I have $100.00 in the bank it does not mean you understand what $100.00 is, does it?
Quote I, personally, know quite a lot about what others think they know about their Imaginary Friend. If you are talking about some personal experience that has convinced you the Friend is not just imaginary, then I’m afraid I will only be convinced of your argument if you can provide some unambiguous evidence that it is a deity causing such an experience. If you cant understand the evidence, what would it matter? In other words if you don't believe in math in general how could you understand the meaning of $100.00 even if I handed it to you it would just be meaningless valueless paper, right?
Quote How do you know what causes such experiences? What causes you to not know such experiences, it could be something you simply lack but instead your lack of the experience causes you to decide others are either lacking something or imagining something.
Quote You have not been able to show me there is any such thing as your god, let alone what it does or does not cause. Likewise, I have not been able to teach my dog the value of a dollar(I don't mean that to be condescending)
Quote You are an expert at mangling the English language. What did you say? The bottom line is, that I can claim that the whole pantheon of Roman gods exists, and I have personal experience of all of them, and you are wrong because you have neglected to make a personal relationship with each of them in the way I have. Have you actually done so?
Quote Would you have respect for such a statement, and if not, why should anyone respect yours? After all, you are “atheist” towards all gods apart from the one you worship. I've already explained to you that there can be no such thing as “gods” in the sense that God is the SUPREME BEING
Quote Why should others not be “atheist” in regards to your god? There is no unambiguous evidence to distinguish between god claims. There can be many “god claims” but these are all just understanding of God even if they number 10,000
Quote Why should a god be needed to cause consciousness? It is not a fact that consciousness in inherent throughout existence, so how could it be any kind of evidence anyway? Consciousness must be inherent as nothing can come into being without that thing being inherent in existence.
inherent – in the nature of something though not readily apparent
Quote Even if it was true, it is still ambiguous because it could be evidence for the work of the quick and clever Mercury, the hard-working if occasionally dangerous Vulcan and the seductive Venus. If the universe is the work of gods (or just one), where is your evidence that your god has played any part in it? The evidence is in my Consciousness it did not originate with me and therefore it must be attributed to Consciousness itself and being that it works through a living being then only a living being who is conscious can be EVIDENT
Quote I really think that if believers could see that the arguments they make for the existence of their own god are arguments for any god then the rate of belief would halve. I don’t think you can see the absurdity of it either. It's not absurd at all and you are right but the fact is all arguments for gods are simply arguments for the understanding of the viewpoints of God, there need not be multiple gods to have multiple understandings. God is One
Quote Non-sequitur and religious platitude. It is much more valid to say that existence arises from events that lead to existence, False, events can not arise unless those events are alreaduy acting in existence. How can an event that doesn't exist occur?
Quote and it is not necessarily true that all events have causes. Yes but all events cause effect because “events” are what “Happens” and Happenings are both Causes and effects, do you understand?
Quote If believers could grasp that idea then I think the rate of belief would halve again, at least amongst those intelligent enough to think it. Now think about what I have said here intelligently and see if you agree with any of it. Just dont dismiss it because it is coming from me, really examine what I just said.
God Bless You!
BD
Quote Knowing what others believe is not the same thing as having an understanding of what they believe. If you know that I believe that I have $100.00 in the bank it does not mean you understand what $100.00 is, does it?
A good analogy, but unfortunately not for your argument. What you are saying is that I cannot understand the $100 in your account. Not only is that not true, but I can also understand the circumstances in which you might believe there is $100 in your account when it actually isn’t there!Quote
I, personally, know quite a lot about what others think they know about their Imaginary Friend. If you are talking about some personal experience that has convinced you the Friend is not just imaginary, then I’m afraid I will only be convinced of your argument if you can provide some unambiguous evidence that it is a deity causing such an experience.Quote If you cant understand the evidence, what would it matter?
I often ask the same question of creationists.Quote In other words if you don't believe in math in general how could you understand the meaning of $100.00 even if I handed it to you it would just be meaningless valueless paper, right?
But I do understand maths.Quote What causes you to not know such experiences, it could be something you simply lack but instead your lack of the experience causes you to decide others are either lacking something or imagining something.
You haven’t said what the experiences are that you have. Other religious people have shared their experiences and I find that I have had the same experience, but have not felt the need to attribute it to a divine conspiracy.Quote Likewise, I have not been able to teach my dog the value of a dollar(I don't mean that to be condescending)
I can understand maths. Bring on your talk of accountancy!Stu: I can claim that the whole pantheon of Roman gods exists, and I have personal experience of all of them, and you are wrong because you have neglected to make a personal relationship with each of them in the way I have.
Quote Have you actually done so?
No of course not. But if I am good then you have no way of distinguishing between me the wide-eyed deluded believer in gods and me the convincingly wide-eyed con artist.Quote I've already explained to you that there can be no such thing as “gods” in the sense that God is the SUPREME BEING
That is not an explanation, it is a religious assertion and a religious platitude. There is no evidence to support your claim that there is more than zero gods, and the words “supreme being” actually have no useful meaning.Quote There can be many “god claims” but these are all just understanding of God even if they number 10,000
That is why I mentioned Diana. Is she an alternative incarnation of your god?Stu: Why should a god be needed to cause consciousness? It is not a fact that consciousness in inherent throughout existence, so how could it be any kind of evidence anyway?
Quote Consciousness must be inherent as nothing can come into being without that thing being inherent in existence.
What does that mean? I don’t think it means anything!Descartes did not prove his own existence, he just stated the assumption that he could assume his own existence because he could think about it. It is not necessarily objectively true, unless you define existence as the ability to think, but then do rocks exist?
Quote inherent – in the nature of something though not readily apparent
Consciousness is not inherent throughout existence, as the rock demonstrates.Quote The evidence is in my Consciousness it did not originate with me and therefore it must be attributed to Consciousness itself and being that it works through a living being then only a living being who is conscious can be EVIDENT
So rocks have no inherent existence.Stu: I really think that if believers could see that the arguments they make for the existence of their own god are arguments for any god then the rate of belief would halve. I don’t think you can see the absurdity of it either.
Quote It's not absurd at all and you are right but the fact is all arguments for gods are simply arguments for the understanding of the viewpoints of God, there need not be multiple gods to have multiple understandings. God is One.
But even one common understanding is not evidence that excludes the possibility that many gods exist, or none. What is more, many understandings of gods, even within the same denomination, are contradictory. Once you have extended that to the Roman gods, you have the contradiction that Vulcan is ONLY the god of blacksmiths and volcanoes and NOT the god of war, for example, whereas your god oversees all three portfolios.Stu: Non-sequitur and religious platitude. It is much more valid to say that existence arises from events that lead to existence,
Quote False, events can not arise unless those events are alreaduy acting in existence. How can an event that doesn't exist occur?
That does not follow what I wrote!Stu: and it is not necessarily true that all events have causes.
Quote Yes but all events cause effect because “events” are what “Happens” and Happenings are both Causes and effects, do you understand?
Maybe, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote.Quote Now think about what I have said here intelligently and see if you agree with any of it. Just dont dismiss it because it is coming from me, really examine what I just said.
I don’t understand what relevance half of it has.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,19:53) BD I can understand maths. Bring on your talk of accountancy!
Stuart
Hi Stuart,You seem to have trouble understanding this!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,19:53) BD Quote Knowing what others believe is not the same thing as having an understanding of what they believe. If you know that I believe that I have $100.00 in the bank it does not mean you understand what $100.00 is, does it?
A good analogy, but unfortunately not for your argument. What you are saying is that I cannot understand the $100 in your account. Not only is that not true, but I can also understand the circumstances in which you might believe there is $100 in your account when it actually isn’t there!Quote
I, personally, know quite a lot about what others think they know about their Imaginary Friend. If you are talking about some personal experience that has convinced you the Friend is not just imaginary, then I’m afraid I will only be convinced of your argument if you can provide some unambiguous evidence that it is a deity causing such an experience.Quote If you cant understand the evidence, what would it matter?
I often ask the same question of creationists.Quote In other words if you don't believe in math in general how could you understand the meaning of $100.00 even if I handed it to you it would just be meaningless valueless paper, right?
But I do understand maths.Quote What causes you to not know such experiences, it could be something you simply lack but instead your lack of the experience causes you to decide others are either lacking something or imagining something.
You haven’t said what the experiences are that you have. Other religious people have shared their experiences and I find that I have had the same experience, but have not felt the need to attribute it to a divine conspiracy.Quote Likewise, I have not been able to teach my dog the value of a dollar(I don't mean that to be condescending)
I can understand maths. Bring on your talk of accountancy!Stu: I can claim that the whole pantheon of Roman gods exists, and I have personal experience of all of them, and you are wrong because you have neglected to make a personal relationship with each of them in the way I have.
Quote Have you actually done so?
No of course not. But if I am good then you have no way of distinguishing between me the wide-eyed deluded believer in gods and me the convincingly wide-eyed con artist.Quote I've already explained to you that there can be no such thing as “gods” in the sense that God is the SUPREME BEING
That is not an explanation, it is a religious assertion and a religious platitude. There is no evidence to support your claim that there is more than zero gods, and the words “supreme being” actually have no useful meaning.Quote There can be many “god claims” but these are all just understanding of God even if they number 10,000
That is why I mentioned Diana. Is she an alternative incarnation of your god?Stu: Why should a god be needed to cause consciousness? It is not a fact that consciousness in inherent throughout existence, so how could it be any kind of evidence anyway?
Quote Consciousness must be inherent as nothing can come into being without that thing being inherent in existence.
What does that mean? I don’t think it means anything!Descartes did not prove his own existence, he just stated the assumption that he could assume his own existence because he could think about it. It is not necessarily objectively true, unless you define existence as the ability to think, but then do rocks exist?
Quote inherent – in the nature of something though not readily apparent
Consciousness is not inherent throughout existence, as the rock demonstrates.Quote The evidence is in my Consciousness it did not originate with me and therefore it must be attributed to Consciousness itself and being that it works through a living being then only a living being who is conscious can be EVIDENT
So rocks have no inherent existence.Stu: I really think that if believers could see that the arguments they make for the existence of their own god are arguments for any god then the rate of belief would halve. I don’t think you can see the absurdity of it either.
Quote It's not absurd at all and you are right but the fact is all arguments for gods are simply arguments for the understanding of the viewpoints of God, there need not be multiple gods to have multiple understandings. God is One.
But even one common understanding is not evidence that excludes the possibility that many gods exist, or none. What is more, many understandings of gods, even within the same denomination, are contradictory. Once you have extended that to the Roman gods, you have the contradiction that Vulcan is ONLY the god of blacksmiths and volcanoes and NOT the god of war, for example, whereas your god oversees all three portfolios.Stu: Non-sequitur and religious platitude. It is much more valid to say that existence arises from events that lead to existence,
Quote False, events can not arise unless those events are alreaduy acting in existence. How can an event that doesn't exist occur?
That does not follow what I wrote!Stu: and it is not necessarily true that all events have causes.
Quote Yes but all events cause effect because “events” are what “Happens” and Happenings are both Causes and effects, do you understand?
Maybe, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote.Quote Now think about what I have said here intelligently and see if you agree with any of it. Just dont dismiss it because it is coming from me, really examine what I just said.
I don’t understand what relevance half of it has.Stuart
Rocks exist because matter is inherent in existence. Everything that there “is” is because it is inherent in existence.isn't a rock intrinsic to matter and isn't matter intrinsic to energy?
To know what a rock is gives it conscious meaning and therefore consciousness is to rock what light is to the eye.
We already have found out through quantum physics that particles will respond differently when observed then when not being observed so in a sense everything has a grade of Consciousness and hence everything responds to a law of some kind.
BD
Quote Rocks exist because matter is inherent in existence.
So non-corporeal spirits do not exist.Quote Everything that there “is” is because it is inherent in existence.
You are just defining the word “is”. That gives no information about existence.Quote isn't a rock intrinsic to matter and isn't matter intrinsic to energy?
No, matter is intrinsic to a rock. I don’t think the two are commutative. Matter is energy. You defined “is” to mean inherent in existence, so the two are mutually inherent, not intrinsic.Quote To know what a rock is gives it conscious meaning and therefore consciousness is to rock what light is to the eye.
I don’t think you really understand what you are typing.Quote We already have found out through quantum physics that particles will respond differently when observed then when not being observed so in a sense everything has a grade of Consciousness and hence everything responds to a law of some kind.
It is not reasonable to infer consciousness as a property of quantum particles that causes the apparent change in their behaviour under observation. You may as well tear up your dictionary and associate whatever nouns you want without reference to common understanding.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,22:12) BD Quote Rocks exist because matter is inherent in existence.
So non-corporeal spirits do not exist.Quote Everything that there “is” is because it is inherent in existence.
You are just defining the word “is”. That gives no information about existence.Quote isn't a rock intrinsic to matter and isn't matter intrinsic to energy?
No, matter is intrinsic to a rock. I don’t think the two are commutative. Matter is energy. You defined “is” to mean inherent in existence, so the two are mutually inherent, not intrinsic.Quote To know what a rock is gives it conscious meaning and therefore consciousness is to rock what light is to the eye.
I don’t think you really understand what you are typing.Quote We already have found out through quantum physics that particles will respond differently when observed then when not being observed so in a sense everything has a grade of Consciousness and hence everything responds to a law of some kind.
It is not reasonable to infer consciousness as a property of quantum particles that causes the apparent change in their behaviour under observation. You may as well tear up your dictionary and associate whatever nouns you want without reference to common understanding.Stuart
You may not understand what I am talking about or you may not want to understand what I am talking about, either way what is for sure is:Intelligent life comes from out of Existence itself as all other things do. Therefore creative intelligent life is inherent in existence just as non-creative unintelligent life/non-life is also inherent in existence.
All things that Exist are “in” existence. There is no other option.
Existence functions through LAW and LAWs are byproducts of Intelligent intent Therefor Law has a Law giver/maker
I suppose You have the ability to understand what I am saying if you do not understand what I am saying ridiculing what I say certainly will not help the matter.
BD
Quote You may not understand what I am talking about or you may not want to understand what I am talking about, either way what is for sure is
I'm not sure either!Quote Intelligent life comes from out of Existence itself as all other things do. Therefore creative intelligent life is inherent in existence just as non-creative unintelligent life/non-life is also inherent in existence.
The primary definition of the word “inherent” is “existing in something”. So if we substitute that definition into your sentence, it becomes: Therefore creative intelligent life is existing in something in existence just as non-creative unintelligent life/non-life is also existing in something in existence. Is that what you meant to say? It actually says nothing, it just defines existence as existence.Quote Existence functions through LAW and LAWs are byproducts of Intelligent intent Therefor Law has a Law giver/maker
What laws do you mean? The laws of nature? What intelligence do you mean? Your “therefore” is a non-sequitur. You are just making a load of religious platitudes. The laws of physics actually do NOT appear to be the result of intelligence because they do not make any distinctions between different situations. Gravity acts on the good and the bad in exactly the same way. It takes large amounts of matter in a nebula and makes large stars that can go supernova and make the heavy atoms needed for life as we know it by exactly the same law of attraction that leads to small stars and atoms too small for life. Electrostatic attraction makes no distinction between failing to glue together two atoms that break apart causing a break in DNA that leads to cancer in a much-loved preacher, or doing the same thing to a violent criminal. The laws of nature are exactly the opposite of “intelligent”, they are blind and indifferent. You assert that these non-intelligent laws require a provider, and my assertion that they do not is just as valid as yours.Quote I suppose You have the ability to understand what I am saying if you do not understand what I am saying ridiculing what I say certainly will not help the matter.
I think I made the point that I was not convinced that you understood what you were writing about consciousness, inherency etc. I'm no more convinced of that than I was.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 10 2010,09:46) BD Quote You may not understand what I am talking about or you may not want to understand what I am talking about, either way what is for sure is
I'm not sure either!Quote Intelligent life comes from out of Existence itself as all other things do. Therefore creative intelligent life is inherent in existence just as non-creative unintelligent life/non-life is also inherent in existence.
The primary definition of the word “inherent” is “existing in something”. So if we substitute that definition into your sentence, it becomes: Therefore creative intelligent life is existing in something in existence just as non-creative unintelligent life/non-life is also existing in something in existence. Is that what you meant to say? It actually says nothing, it just defines existence as existence.Quote Existence functions through LAW and LAWs are byproducts of Intelligent intent Therefor Law has a Law giver/maker
What laws do you mean? The laws of nature? What intelligence do you mean? Your “therefore” is a non-sequitur. You are just making a load of religious platitudes. The laws of physics actually do NOT appear to be the result of intelligence because they do not make any distinctions between different situations. Gravity acts on the good and the bad in exactly the same way. It takes large amounts of matter in a nebula and makes large stars that can go supernova and make the heavy atoms needed for life as we know it by exactly the same law of attraction that leads to small stars and atoms too small for life. Electrostatic attraction makes no distinction between failing to glue together two atoms that break apart causing a break in DNA that leads to cancer in a much-loved preacher, or doing the same thing to a violent criminal. The laws of nature are exactly the opposite of “intelligent”, they are blind and indifferent. You assert that these non-intelligent laws require a provider, and my assertion that they do not is just as valid as yours.Quote I suppose You have the ability to understand what I am saying if you do not understand what I am saying ridiculing what I say certainly will not help the matter.
I think I made the point that I was not convinced that you understood what you were writing about consciousness, inherency etc. I'm no more convinced of that than I was.Stuart
As I said you most likely cannot understand what I am saying, it's okay.Quote The laws of physics actually do NOT appear to be the result of intelligence because they do not make any distinctions between different situations. This quote proved to me you have no understanding of what I have been saying.
In-fact your statement is completely ignorant to the reality of something as simple as the food chain or the uniterrupted existence of this solar system as I said before, it's okay.
Different people understand different things.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 10 2010,18:09) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 10 2010,09:46) BD Quote You may not understand what I am talking about or you may not want to understand what I am talking about, either way what is for sure is
I'm not sure either!Quote Intelligent life comes from out of Existence itself as all other things do. Therefore creative intelligent life is inherent in existence just as non-creative unintelligent life/non-life is also inherent in existence.
The primary definition of the word “inherent” is “existing in something”. So if we substitute that definition into your sentence, it becomes: Therefore creative intelligent life is existing in something in existence just as non-creative unintelligent life/non-life is also existing in something in existence. Is that what you meant to say? It actually says nothing, it just defines existence as existence.Quote Existence functions through LAW and LAWs are byproducts of Intelligent intent Therefor Law has a Law giver/maker
What laws do you mean? The laws of nature? What intelligence do you mean? Your “therefore” is a non-sequitur. You are just making a load of religious platitudes. The laws of physics actually do NOT appear to be the result of intelligence because they do not make any distinctions between different situations. Gravity acts on the good and the bad in exactly the same way. It takes large amounts of matter in a nebula and makes large stars that can go supernova and make the heavy atoms needed for life as we know it by exactly the same law of attraction that leads to small stars and atoms too small for life. Electrostatic attraction makes no distinction between failing to glue together two atoms that break apart causing a break in DNA that leads to cancer in a much-loved preacher, or doing the same thing to a violent criminal. The laws of nature are exactly the opposite of “intelligent”, they are blind and indifferent. You assert that these non-intelligent laws require a provider, and my assertion that they do not is just as valid as yours.Quote I suppose You have the ability to understand what I am saying if you do not understand what I am saying ridiculing what I say certainly will not help the matter.
I think I made the point that I was not convinced that you understood what you were writing about consciousness, inherency etc. I'm no more convinced of that than I was.Stuart
As I said you most likely cannot understand what I am saying, it's okay.Quote The laws of physics actually do NOT appear to be the result of intelligence because they do not make any distinctions between different situations. This quote proved to me you have no understanding of what I have been saying.
In-fact your statement is completely ignorant to the reality of something as simple as the food chain or the uniterrupted existence of this solar system as I said before, it's okay.
Different people understand different things.
What is that about the food chain or the solar system? What are you trying to say here?Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
